|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
n a message dated 7/27/02 5:52:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, apitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
This is exactly the type of arrogance and negativity that is destroying this list. Though what AP is asking "may" be valid observations and questions, it's the manner in which they are presented which should not be allowed for this list to maintain its integrity.
As I always tell my managenet staff with regards to how they speak to the general employee base, which pays their wages through their efforts, it's not what one says it's how you say it.
AP, you need to get off your high horse and simply ask your questions and present your opinions and observations in a positive and constructive manner.
Just one persons opinion...I only speak for myself.
Are there any moderators here? Apparently not.
I'm sorry Clyde, I made an incorrect assumption that I was dealing with a group of traders here that
were above average in intelligence and would know to apply apples and apples. My point in saying your
analysis was flawed was reference to the obvious fact that the current market environment has NOTHING
to do with the environment that existed for the past 20 odd years. If you wish to compare like with like
you need to compare REAL bear markets with the current activity. The US has had NO bear markets in
the past 20 years. The only obvious ones are 1929-33 and the 70's. All of this seems obvious to me.
Its great to have the ability to take some simple notion and crunch it through 1000's of examples and tests
but ultimately its like using a sledgehammer to put a nail in the wall. Extremely ineffective and will lead
everyone to wrong conclusions. There is only ONE proper way and it involves an understanding and
appreciation of markets, people, economics and how it all interacts. Markets AREN'T simple, they are
incredibly complex, and any attempt to apply one dimensional analysis across a whole raft of environments
will be futile. Its like saying the best moving average will be the least square fit line over the past 100 years!!
By eliminating al that is incorrect Clyde, it brings everyone one step closer to the truth. Wasn't their a famous
genius who once said it you eliminate the impossible, you are left with whats possible?
So my suggestion, even though it went over your head, is to once again suggest that you analyse where 6%
updays occurred in GENUINE sustained bear trends. i.e 1929-33, 1970-74 and the NASDAQ 2000-current.
I'm sure your readers would be more informed with whatever is discovered. I haven't done the work, but my
experience would suggest there were quite a few of them, and ALL except the very last one had no bullish
implications whatsoever.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here to find your contact lenses!
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|